Typically, when an infant in the U.S. is relinquished for adoption, isn't it more often the MAN...?
who determines the future? When a man refuses to honor his obligation to his child, the woman is forced to consider all the "second-best" options. When she rejects aborting her child, she must then make the best choice she can for her child's life. (I believe whichever choice she makes, it is highly probably the right choice).
HOWEVER, I see lots of folks jumping all over the women who are considering relinquishing their children for adoption --- AND I have yet to see a word about the merry skippers. Isn't it they who have made parenthood untenable?
2007-11-02T23:22:35Z
Joy, I see what you mean, but the guy had to bail first...or get rejected by the mom-to-be???...before maternal grandparents could have much of a say...
Anonymous2007-11-03T07:23:13Z
Favorite Answer
Wow! What a great, thought-provoking question.
Yes, the father bailing or the mother rejecting the father puts SOME mothers in an untenable position (not always tho' - some women are better off). Many solo mothers do quite well on their own. I know many single mothers who are fabulous providers for their children and would rip anyone's lungs out who called their choice to parent "second best" (thanks for the quotes on second best!)
I also agree with Joy in that when the father is not supportive, the maternal grandparents are very influential with regards to "second best" options. Millions of families in the US do support their daughters' decisions to parent their children, both financially and emotionally. BTW - they do not see this choice as a "second best" option at all, knowing that it is best for the child to remain with his/her family of origin (as long as the family is healthy!). Millions of grandparents also choose kinship relationships with their grandchildren, keeping them out of the foster system and opening the opportunity for benefits via their employers or social services.
Many of the families who choose to keep their families intact do so because they observed or experienced the horrors of the 50's, 60's, and 70's when mothers were forced to give their babies away. Even now, it breaks my heart to see some of the moms who are backed into a financial corner and feel that they HAVE to choose adoption to provide food and shelter for their child.
I agree with you tho', if a mother makes an informed choice to give up her baby through an ethical adoption agency AND if the child has the benefit of ongoing contact with his/her family of origin (that is, contact that is appropriate in terms of the health of the family), it is unfair for people to jump all over these mothers. They have done what they feel is best for themselves and their children.
I think that a lot of the "jumping all over" the women (really - shouldn't we call them mothers??) is actually well-meaning people who want to make sure that the mothers are informed about their options and careful about the ethics of the adoption facilitator that they choose. I think that a lot of the recent posts chastising the so-called "antis" are made by angry people who use YA as a cheap way to advertise their desire to adopt an infant. I do sympathize - less than 2% of solo mom pregnancies result in infant adoption which sets up hopeful adoptive parents to be exploited, financially and emotionally. It is very sad to see them jerked around by the system too.
Sandra - I neglected to point out that solo dads can do a great job too. We have good friends whose son had a daughter when he was 19. He just graduated from engineering school and is a doting dad of a beautiful little girl. He has shared custody with his former girlfriend who was 17 when their baby was born. She is halfway through nursing school. Both had wonderful support from their parents.
What I have noticed researching adoption as I have. Fathers who do stand up get shafted by either the agency or the natural mother. On the other hand, I have seen mothers get shafted by fathers who don't want responsibility.
One of the states is doing a volunteer father registry and the local newspaper did a story on it. Many men saw it as a way for mothers to get child support. What they fail to realize and many still do is that it protects their right to parent.
In these cases with fathers being mentioned all over the internet, these fathers did the right thing. They registered on the putative father registries in various states. Some cases the mothers jumped states. Two of those cases the agencies were trying to come up with tactics to force the fathers to relinquish. I believe in two cases right now the fathers are being forced to pay child support. Yep I know I know. That is unreasonable but true. A father in the United States must be on all fifty state registries in order to stop the adoption of their children. In another case, the agency was willing to have the father charged with rape. Both parents were 16 and 17.
I also believe that adoption agencies have a very strong network going on. How else would these mother be able to jump states like they do?
i do no longer think of adoption as an unselfish act, yet somewhat the act of somebody who's scared and not getting the ideal help/supplies she desires to make sure. i do no longer see the way it is unselfish. it extremely is not egocentric the two, different than on the area of the adoption companies and PAP's who push the means delivery mom contained in the direction they might like her to pass (relinquish the newborn). regardless of if, I do sense that parenting would nicely be egocentric, no longer because of the fact somebody did no longer place their newborn for adoption, yet because of the fact they're searching for a mini me to persist with of their footsteps, a mini me to love them unconditionally, and so on.
This is how it is. If a woman decides to have a baby or get's pregant if she wants to keep the baby and the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby she can always get child support. If she decides to give the baby up she can always lie and say she doesn't know who the father is. What makes you think she would tell the father so he might want the baby and she is the one who has to pay child support when have you ever heard of that happening. There are cases like shawn mcdonald that have had their child stole through adoption because the mother decided for her self to give the baby away so she unlike most men who pay child support she wouldn't have to pay so no it's the women that has all the say. What should happen if the father decides to fight the adoption and stops it and get vistation then both mother and father need to pay child support to the couple who has the baby. Why should the mother get off free. Everyone praises the birth mother and call the father dead beat dads when in most cases the men would be better parents . Until this changes men are going to have a harder time in courts. Birthcontrol goes both ways,
How is adoption a second-best option? Also, a lot of fathers aren't aware that they impregnated a girl, or there are plenty of cases where the father wants to keep the child but the mother would rather give it up.